3 ms·

Mass transports can't substitute cars simply because of economics: yes, a bus at least half stuffed of people is cheaper than a car per passenger but people nee

by kkfx 2y ago

Mass transports can't substitute cars simply because of economics: yes, a bus at least half stuffed of people is cheaper than a car per passenger but people need to move from any A to B any time all other the year. If you effectively cover all possible settlements 24/7/365 you'll fail quickly pushing nearly empty or even totally empty mass transports most of the days for most of the routes. If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting. Pointless except to farm people forcing them to zero ownership and keeping them consuming anything.

Bluestrike2 2y ago
> If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting [...] Unless I've misunderstood your comment, I'm not sure I'd consider that a hybrid model; if anything, that's kind of how much of our current mass transit system works across North America. That said, the solution there is increased density with mixed uses. More housing in close proximity to and mixed in with offices, restaurants, schools, shops, etc. means more people living within walking and/or biking distance of their most common destinations. It also gives you better locations for building transit stops, to the benefit of both those who live in that area as well as those traveling to it. Infill can't fix everything or undo our current sprawl, but it can improve a lot of it. For all the damage we've down to American towns and cities, most towns built before the 1950s still have their old bones. They can be restored to their former glories without turning everything into Manhattan, giving communities a solid core capable of supporting them for the long-term. In any case, you don't have to build out a perfect transit system with stops outside every conceivable destination, including areas that lack any sort of real density. You just need something that's convenient and helps move most people to most places without having to wait an hour for a bus or train. If those whose destinations are outside those areas have to use a car, that's perfectly fine. They aren't any worse of, and in fact, their own commutes would almost certainly be improved by helping get other drivers off the road.
- kkfx 2y ago
  > the solution there is increased density This is a common narrative but no, it's not a viable solution except in the short term, witch means a way too costly solution in the mean and long term. Intermixing homes, restaurants, schools, shops, yes it's a MUST, yes, it's why here in EU spread areas works well even today, but not density. Take as an example the classic paper mail: any condo have a dedicate area with a wall of mailboxes, a wonderful dense solution, anyone get the mail, the postman have a very shorter trip to delivery them. Ah, yes, they do not work much for parcels but BACK THEN parcels was very rare and mails very common. After a bit of time on-line retail flourish while mails became emails. In dense city, EU level density, it's a nightmare. First delivery vehicles need to be bigger and there is no place for them to stop and deliver, delivery to single home can be quick enough for a stop&go but for a condo where you might have 5-8 parcels and the delivery man it's not alone, another have also some parcels to deliver in the very same place at the very same time it's a big issue. It's an even bigger issue inside: the mailbox area is just a wall, there is no room for enough space for parcels, so it's next to impossible delivering them in a common place in an already built condo. Few might be adapted but most simply can't. Single family homes with a bit of ground around on contrary have no issues, switching from a small mailbox to a bigger parcel box is just a matter of cutting a bit more fence and insert the new "big box". It's a very simple change in society and dense cities can't adapt. Drone delivery? Try to imaging a flying drone delivering to a balcony in a condo, it's can't work, while there is not much issues having on the same big parcel box a "special" roof for drone delivery with a very visible address mark for them. Flying cars? Well, if you have a garden adapting a place for landing it's not really an issue, in a dense city? I'm curious those who have written https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... what they have in their head... Even if we had eVTOLs today they are ALL but urban. They would be a perfect match for a spread area where there is room for take off and landing, and the quick run by air help to be "dense" while being spread. Back to today just see how much metros costs and how limited they are, how many parking issue, how impossible is to convert multi-storey buildings to the Green New Deal: no room for enough p.v., no root for proper heat-pump heating and so on. Long story short: a dense city is like a factory, very effective wen you live inside during the period it was designed for, a nightmare when things change. A nightmare to change it to adapt. That's why today thanks to modern logistic and remote work we can achieve city-like efficiency without being dense, the new right density for the economy of scale is a spread population living and working in small buildings, intermixed, not too spread, but with enough space around to change them completely, to being able to evolve at the minimum cost and maximum flexibility. That's is not advertised, even denied, because is such a society git economy can't exists. There is no room for ready-made food in a spread population where WFH is the norm for all eligible jobs, there is no room for Uber et al. for cars, there is no room for public laundry and other service, such spread society know the value of ownership and instead of owning nothing living like slaves at the mercy of few paying the slaves just the bare minimum to allow them pay services they needs to live, enough to avoid riots and revolutions, it's a society like the classic desktop model of individual interconnected and in full control of themselves, moving in a peer to peer society. Not try looking at modern cities, from Neom to Arkadag, Innopolis, Prospera etc, they are distopic realities where people are slaves AND they cost so much that's impossible to create smart cities for all.
piva00 2y ago
> If you effectively cover all possible settlements 24/7/365 you'll fail quickly pushing nearly empty or even totally empty mass transports most of the days for most of the routes. But... You don't need to do this? There's no way to cover every settlement 24/7/365 but you can balance a schedule based on the most likely hours of usage, even if keeping occupation low, and for the extremely edge cases where there'd be virtually no ridership you don't need to provide the same availability. It still makes the system very, very useful for the vast majority of the time while the gaps can be covered by other modes of transportation such as taxis, that would still be cheaper than purchasing and maintaining a car. Adding to the sibling comment to mine, I will give you my personal example which I think covers a few of these points: - Living 15-20km away from the city centre, in a suburb of about 13k people on an area of around 2,35km2 - Bus service connects to nearby suburbs via local routes - Scheduled every 10-15 min between 06:00-21:00, every 20 min from 21:00-00:00, every 30 min from 00:00-06:00 - Bus service via express routes connects to more distant suburbs (about 8-10km) including a major hospital - Scheduled every 10 min between 06:00-20:00, every 20 min between 20:00-22:00, every 30 min between 22:00-06:00 - Metro connects to the city centre, travel time in train of about 30-35 min - Scheduled every 15 min between 04:30-06:00, every 10 min between 06:00-08:00, every 7 min between 08:00-11:00, every 10 min between 11:00-15:00, every 7 min between 15:00-20:00, every 10 min between 20:00-22:00, every 15 min between 22:00-00:00. Weekends it runs overnight from 00:00-04:30 every 30 min. - All houses in the area have access to the metro in 15 min or less walking. - All houses have access to the metro through a bus connection in 7 min or less. The odd times I need to come home back from the city centre when there's no metro running (weekdays after midnight) I hail a cab and spend on fares what would be about 1/4 of a petrol tank to get home. Having a car has no benefits to me given the cost for purchase, maintenance, insurance, winter tyres, parking, fuel, etc.
- kkfx 2y ago
  > You don't need to do this? Oh yes I do. Let's say I'm late to a party on the other end of the town and no cars. What I'm supposed to do? Sleep at the bus stop waiting for the next bus late in the morning? Let's say I have to take a plane very early in the morning, there is no bus because it's a timeframe almost nobody have to move. What I'm supposed to do? Leaving yesterday and sleeping at the airport? That's why we have personal transport means. And actually yes, they allow anyone moving at anytime from any place to any other because roads are the only infra needed and they are static and every settlement is connected to some roads in a nation-wide road network. Having only a collective transport where it's sustainable is like having websites only working in certain moment of the day certain day of the year, some have tried this absurdity... > I will give you my personal example which I think covers a few of these points I was living in a big city, now I'm living in the French Alps: it's a spread are but I still have a supermarket at 1' car, few shops, few sport and leisure in 10' radius, the elementary school is a 8', the high school at 30' in the winter 10' less when there is no risk of ice or snow, nearest uni it at 1h15' etc. Of course there is no room for collective transport, there are some, but they are not much used not much interested. Thanks to this spread setup traffic does not exists, delivery of goods is cheap also because of that and easy access of anything, regional economy is alive ranging from a poor shepherd with few sheep to the international nuclear fusion research project with in between many kind of activities, there is room for any foreseeable evolution, the first drone delivery (failed) experiment was started in 2014 and operational in 2017 https://www.futura-sciences.com/tech/actualites/drone-livraison-drones-poste-lance-var-56565/ https://www.futura-sciences.com/tech/actualites/drone-livrai... it's a failed project because they only fly with good weather and not too much wind during the day, but anyway that's is. If a day flying car's will be a thing we have the room for that as well. At what cost? Well, LESS then the cost of dense are infra. Of course there are many roads, but they are "light roads", there is no need of big highways with enormously expensive bridges and galleries, there is no need of big and expensive aqueducts since the consumption is spread small scale sourcing is normal and cheaper. No need of high and mid rise buildings and so on. Why bother about collective transport schedule? Yes we depend on car, but personal cars regularly used are not much more expensive in raw materials terms than a fleet of public transport with the relevant infra. Especially EVs can be recharged at home for remote workers, at work with plenty of p.v. around factories, supermarkets, ... since there is space for them meaning we could sooner or later cut also much needs of fuels delivery. New homes means electrical heating, so no fuel logistic for VARIOUS type of fuel, EVs no fuel logistic for cars, agrivoltaic if well done (something NONEXISTENT but possible so far) means also almost no fuel needed for agriculture and so on. Just homes, electricity grid and local aqueducts. Oh, we can even spare more, for instance making common small energy storage and water storage for every buildings we can spare money in emergency services and any local works that interrupt the service, it might sound not much but it's a thing as well. Having cars might means no benefit to you, but have a price for the society, yourself included, because well, we already see in various fields we are good at making small things at scale, like clusters, but any big project have not so nice outcome, so being able to live and flourish at small scale on scale it's a very important thing in a changing world. Not anything can be done so far like that, sure, but many things can be done.

by kkfx 2y ago

Bluestrike2 2y ago

> If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting [...] Unless I've misunderstood your comment, I'm not sure I'd consider that a hybrid model; if anything, that's kind of how much of our current mass transit system works across North America. That said, the solution there is increased density with mixed uses. More housing in close proximity to and mixed in with offices, restaurants, schools, shops, etc. means more people living within walking and/or biking distance of their most common destinations. It also gives you better locations for building transit stops, to the benefit of both those who live in that area as well as those traveling to it. Infill can't fix everything or undo our current sprawl, but it can improve a lot of it. For all the damage we've down to American towns and cities, most towns built before the 1950s still have their old bones. They can be restored to their former glories without turning everything into Manhattan, giving communities a solid core capable of supporting them for the long-term. In any case, you don't have to build out a perfect transit system with stops outside every conceivable destination, including areas that lack any sort of real density. You just need something that's convenient and helps move most people to most places without having to wait an hour for a bus or train. If those whose destinations are outside those areas have to use a car, that's perfectly fine. They aren't any worse of, and in fact, their own commutes would almost certainly be improved by helping get other drivers off the road.

kkfx 2y ago
> the solution there is increased density This is a common narrative but no, it's not a viable solution except in the short term, witch means a way too costly solution in the mean and long term. Intermixing homes, restaurants, schools, shops, yes it's a MUST, yes, it's why here in EU spread areas works well even today, but not density. Take as an example the classic paper mail: any condo have a dedicate area with a wall of mailboxes, a wonderful dense solution, anyone get the mail, the postman have a very shorter trip to delivery them. Ah, yes, they do not work much for parcels but BACK THEN parcels was very rare and mails very common. After a bit of time on-line retail flourish while mails became emails. In dense city, EU level density, it's a nightmare. First delivery vehicles need to be bigger and there is no place for them to stop and deliver, delivery to single home can be quick enough for a stop&go but for a condo where you might have 5-8 parcels and the delivery man it's not alone, another have also some parcels to deliver in the very same place at the very same time it's a big issue. It's an even bigger issue inside: the mailbox area is just a wall, there is no room for enough space for parcels, so it's next to impossible delivering them in a common place in an already built condo. Few might be adapted but most simply can't. Single family homes with a bit of ground around on contrary have no issues, switching from a small mailbox to a bigger parcel box is just a matter of cutting a bit more fence and insert the new "big box". It's a very simple change in society and dense cities can't adapt. Drone delivery? Try to imaging a flying drone delivering to a balcony in a condo, it's can't work, while there is not much issues having on the same big parcel box a "special" roof for drone delivery with a very visible address mark for them. Flying cars? Well, if you have a garden adapting a place for landing it's not really an issue, in a dense city? I'm curious those who have written https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... what they have in their head... Even if we had eVTOLs today they are ALL but urban. They would be a perfect match for a spread area where there is room for take off and landing, and the quick run by air help to be "dense" while being spread. Back to today just see how much metros costs and how limited they are, how many parking issue, how impossible is to convert multi-storey buildings to the Green New Deal: no room for enough p.v., no root for proper heat-pump heating and so on. Long story short: a dense city is like a factory, very effective wen you live inside during the period it was designed for, a nightmare when things change. A nightmare to change it to adapt. That's why today thanks to modern logistic and remote work we can achieve city-like efficiency without being dense, the new right density for the economy of scale is a spread population living and working in small buildings, intermixed, not too spread, but with enough space around to change them completely, to being able to evolve at the minimum cost and maximum flexibility. That's is not advertised, even denied, because is such a society git economy can't exists. There is no room for ready-made food in a spread population where WFH is the norm for all eligible jobs, there is no room for Uber et al. for cars, there is no room for public laundry and other service, such spread society know the value of ownership and instead of owning nothing living like slaves at the mercy of few paying the slaves just the bare minimum to allow them pay services they needs to live, enough to avoid riots and revolutions, it's a society like the classic desktop model of individual interconnected and in full control of themselves, moving in a peer to peer society. Not try looking at modern cities, from Neom to Arkadag, Innopolis, Prospera etc, they are distopic realities where people are slaves AND they cost so much that's impossible to create smart cities for all.

piva00 2y ago

> If you effectively cover all possible settlements 24/7/365 you'll fail quickly pushing nearly empty or even totally empty mass transports most of the days for most of the routes. But... You don't need to do this? There's no way to cover every settlement 24/7/365 but you can balance a schedule based on the most likely hours of usage, even if keeping occupation low, and for the extremely edge cases where there'd be virtually no ridership you don't need to provide the same availability. It still makes the system very, very useful for the vast majority of the time while the gaps can be covered by other modes of transportation such as taxis, that would still be cheaper than purchasing and maintaining a car. Adding to the sibling comment to mine, I will give you my personal example which I think covers a few of these points: - Living 15-20km away from the city centre, in a suburb of about 13k people on an area of around 2,35km2 - Bus service connects to nearby suburbs via local routes - Scheduled every 10-15 min between 06:00-21:00, every 20 min from 21:00-00:00, every 30 min from 00:00-06:00 - Bus service via express routes connects to more distant suburbs (about 8-10km) including a major hospital - Scheduled every 10 min between 06:00-20:00, every 20 min between 20:00-22:00, every 30 min between 22:00-06:00 - Metro connects to the city centre, travel time in train of about 30-35 min - Scheduled every 15 min between 04:30-06:00, every 10 min between 06:00-08:00, every 7 min between 08:00-11:00, every 10 min between 11:00-15:00, every 7 min between 15:00-20:00, every 10 min between 20:00-22:00, every 15 min between 22:00-00:00. Weekends it runs overnight from 00:00-04:30 every 30 min. - All houses in the area have access to the metro in 15 min or less walking. - All houses have access to the metro through a bus connection in 7 min or less. The odd times I need to come home back from the city centre when there's no metro running (weekdays after midnight) I hail a cab and spend on fares what would be about 1/4 of a petrol tank to get home. Having a car has no benefits to me given the cost for purchase, maintenance, insurance, winter tyres, parking, fuel, etc.

kkfx 2y ago
> You don't need to do this? Oh yes I do. Let's say I'm late to a party on the other end of the town and no cars. What I'm supposed to do? Sleep at the bus stop waiting for the next bus late in the morning? Let's say I have to take a plane very early in the morning, there is no bus because it's a timeframe almost nobody have to move. What I'm supposed to do? Leaving yesterday and sleeping at the airport? That's why we have personal transport means. And actually yes, they allow anyone moving at anytime from any place to any other because roads are the only infra needed and they are static and every settlement is connected to some roads in a nation-wide road network. Having only a collective transport where it's sustainable is like having websites only working in certain moment of the day certain day of the year, some have tried this absurdity... > I will give you my personal example which I think covers a few of these points I was living in a big city, now I'm living in the French Alps: it's a spread are but I still have a supermarket at 1' car, few shops, few sport and leisure in 10' radius, the elementary school is a 8', the high school at 30' in the winter 10' less when there is no risk of ice or snow, nearest uni it at 1h15' etc. Of course there is no room for collective transport, there are some, but they are not much used not much interested. Thanks to this spread setup traffic does not exists, delivery of goods is cheap also because of that and easy access of anything, regional economy is alive ranging from a poor shepherd with few sheep to the international nuclear fusion research project with in between many kind of activities, there is room for any foreseeable evolution, the first drone delivery (failed) experiment was started in 2014 and operational in 2017 https://www.futura-sciences.com/tech/actualites/drone-livraison-drones-poste-lance-var-56565/ https://www.futura-sciences.com/tech/actualites/drone-livrai... it's a failed project because they only fly with good weather and not too much wind during the day, but anyway that's is. If a day flying car's will be a thing we have the room for that as well. At what cost? Well, LESS then the cost of dense are infra. Of course there are many roads, but they are "light roads", there is no need of big highways with enormously expensive bridges and galleries, there is no need of big and expensive aqueducts since the consumption is spread small scale sourcing is normal and cheaper. No need of high and mid rise buildings and so on. Why bother about collective transport schedule? Yes we depend on car, but personal cars regularly used are not much more expensive in raw materials terms than a fleet of public transport with the relevant infra. Especially EVs can be recharged at home for remote workers, at work with plenty of p.v. around factories, supermarkets, ... since there is space for them meaning we could sooner or later cut also much needs of fuels delivery. New homes means electrical heating, so no fuel logistic for VARIOUS type of fuel, EVs no fuel logistic for cars, agrivoltaic if well done (something NONEXISTENT but possible so far) means also almost no fuel needed for agriculture and so on. Just homes, electricity grid and local aqueducts. Oh, we can even spare more, for instance making common small energy storage and water storage for every buildings we can spare money in emergency services and any local works that interrupt the service, it might sound not much but it's a thing as well. Having cars might means no benefit to you, but have a price for the society, yourself included, because well, we already see in various fields we are good at making small things at scale, like clusters, but any big project have not so nice outcome, so being able to live and flourish at small scale on scale it's a very important thing in a changing world. Not anything can be done so far like that, sure, but many things can be done.